(PC) Mackey v. Garcia

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH MACKEY, Case No.: 1:23-cv-0337 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETTLEMENT 14 E. GARCIA, et al., AGREEMENT BE DENIED

15 Defendants. (Docs. 29, 30, 36)

16 17 Kenneth Mackey asserted the defendants violated his civil rights under the First and 18 Eighth Amendments. (See Docs. 1, 9, 15.) The parties engaged in a settlement conference with 19 the Court, which resulted in a settlement agreement. (Doc. 25.) Based upon the stipulation of the 20 parties, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. (Docs. 26, 28.) Plaintiff now seeks to 21 compel Defendants to comply with the settlement agreement. (Docs. 29, 30.) 22 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that Defendants have breached 23 any provision of the agreement, and therefore, Plaintiff provides no grounds to obtain an order 24 compelling Defendants to comply with the settlement agreement.” (Doc. 36 at 5.) The 25 magistrate judge also determined that Plaintiff did “not provide[] any explanation as to why he 26 has not filled out the additional form necessary” for Defendants to replace the settlement check 27 that was reported as stolen from the Post Office. (Id. at 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the settlement 1 | agreement, and direct Plaintiff to sign the required form, “STD 435,” to receive his payment due 2 | under the terms of the agreement. (/d.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 4 | any objections were due within 30 days of the date of service. (Doc. 36 at 6-7.) The Court 5 | advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver 6 | of nghts on appeal.” (/d. at 7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); 7 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 8 | time to do so has expired. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 10 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to 11 | be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 3, 2025 (Doc. 36), are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Plaintiff's motions to compel compliance with the settlement agreement (Docs. 29, 15 30) are DENIED. 16 3. To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to receive payment due under the settlement 17 agreement, he SHALL sign the form STD 435. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: __May 23, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28